Apple owns US smartphone market while Samsung dominates worldwide

Only crumbs are left for other competitors.

Smartphone market share numbers for the second quarter of 2012 reveal that occasional bitter rivals Apple and Samsung continue to dominate the market, while competitors fight over the leftovers. Market research firm IDC shows Samsung holding a 30 percent share worldwide, while Apple trails with 17 percent. But NPD's recent data paints a different picture domestically, with Apple garnering 31 percent of the US smartphone market share, and Samsung holding 24 percent.

Worldwide, Android is clearly the dominating platform, with a 68 percent total share according to IDC. iOS has 17 percent as previously mentioned, while BlackBerry, Symbian, and Windows Phone platforms take a few percentage points each. Though overall smartphone sales continue to grow as feature phones decline in popularity, RIM's BlackBerry platform and Nokia's Symbian platform are plummeting in share.

It's worth noting that while Windows Phone trails in fifth place with just 3.5 percent share, its year-over-year growth in unit sales was 115 percent, far more than the overall 42 percent growth of the market. Android had similar triple-digit growth, but started from a much larger base, resulting in its market-leading position.

Samsung alone is responsible for 44 percent of Android sales, more than the next seven vendors—including Google-owned Motorola—combined. The company recently released its third-generation Galaxy SIII handsets and the oversized Galaxy Note, accounting for a large portion of sales.

The market is a bit different in the US, though. Apple still dominates with the iPhone, despite declining sales that follow a typical pattern as Apple gears up to release a new model in the fall. Along with Samsung, those two companies are responsible for 55 percent of the domestic smartphone market according to NPD. HTC, Motorola, and LG round out the top five spots.

The burgeoning US pre-paid market is where the current action is, it seems. Year-over-year smartphone sales to post-paid contract subscribers was flat, while pre-paid smartphones grew 91 percent.

"Prepaid smartphones are no longer just cheap, also-ran options, focused on older and less capable phones," Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, said in a statement. "Carriers have been smart to aggressively market some of their best current smartphones on a pre-paid basis to a new set of customers, in order to keep sales humming along."

Notably, Virgin Mobile and Cricket have recently begun offering Apple's iPhone 4S on a pre-paid basis in addition to recent Android offerings. While the device costs significantly more upfront than a typical "on-contract" price of $199, inexpensive voice and data plans cost far below typical post-paid prices of around $80 per month.

Declining sales from the preceding quarter but increasing sales when comparing to last year quarter.

Anyway how are both companies doing profit wise? Apple in 2011 transformed more than 20% of its revenue in profits, which seems pretty impressive. What's the ratio at Samsung?

Well, we all know Apple has huge profit margin. You can do your own research. This article about mobile OS market share, not market profit share. I am bit surprised Symbian still has this market share. Hard to find people with those phones these days.

Clearly the most interesting item in this data is the continued failure of Microsoft even to establish itself as a significant factor. The other message is confused by how segments are factored. The big event has been the arrival of the Android Linux distribution. Once all of the hardware devices have drivers that work with Linux and processors that are more than able to handle Linux, there is little reason for proprietary operating systems. The establishment of Android as a defacto standard application programming interface further erodes the value of proprietary offerings. Samsung's share of the Android hardware market is certainly substantial. But the other half of a market of that size is far from trivial even if it is divided among a relatively large number of companies. Given the use of an essentially standard application programming interface, there is no strong reason why the relative share of different market participants could not change significantly over time.The trend toward Linux as the dominant computer operating system seems to be growing. Clearly Apple has enough momentum to hold on to its proprietary platform for a while. The arrival of Windows 8 may tell us some more about Microsoft's fate. If they don't manage to do better with tablets than they are doing with phones, it is going to be a problem for them. Of course, given their installed base, it will take a long time for Microsoft's position to erode. But, with the way they disrupting that installed base with a Windows that is reimagined without regard to its needs, the rate of Microsoft erosion could be increased.

Within Android, I'm a bit surprised by Samsung's dominance. I don't expect everyone to share my opinions, but I didn't expect the Galaxy S line's physical home button and hidden two buttons to work for so many people, especially pre-ICS. I don't find their phones nor Touchwiz to be as attractive as a lot of the alternatives, either. What's doing it for them?

Within Android, I'm a bit surprised by Samsung's dominance. I don't expect everyone to share my opinions, but I didn't expect the Galaxy S line's physical home button and hidden two buttons to work for so many people, especially pre-ICS. I don't find their phones nor Touchwiz to be as attractive as a lot of the alternatives, either. What's doing it for them?

IMHO, name-brand recognition and marketing. Samsung is second only to Apple with marketing for their phones. I am an HTC fan myself, and find the new 4" Incredible 4G to be a fantastic phone, but I don't recall ever seeing ONE HTC ad outside of a store. In NYC, Samsung's "The next big thing is here" ads are everywhere.

Plus, Samsung is a well respected brand in the electronics field with a rep that these days seems to have surpassed even Sony. Their TV's have bought them street cred and recognition.

It's really hard to see the growth of WinPhone over the last 4 quarters in that graph, but it's large percentage. WinPhone 7/8 will certainly take 4th place by 1Q 2013, maybe 3rd.

I was shocked that the price of the BlackBerry Torch thru a Canadian carrier last week, I look up some reviews and was more shocked at how basic it was compared to mid-range $300 smart phones. They don't have a chance.

Within Android, I'm a bit surprised by Samsung's dominance. I don't expect everyone to share my opinions, but I didn't expect the Galaxy S line's physical home button and hidden two buttons to work for so many people, especially pre-ICS. I don't find their phones nor Touchwiz to be as attractive as a lot of the alternatives, either. What's doing it for them?

Maybe copying Apple worked? I'm not trying to be trolling but thats my guess. I mean you get apple-like looks with the benefit(?) of running android. You similar packaging similar marketing, all ate cheaper price. . What's not to like?

There is no doubt on my mind that Samsung looked at Apple, saw what worked and copied it. Regardless of that fact it seems to have worked out for them in the end unless they get sued to oblivion by Apple ( which I doubt will happen, they'll get a slap on te wrist and maybe have to change some designs and marketting material).

At what point does Android plateau globally? We've seen a step back for Android in the US (small but it could indicate a plateau or a new trend). Is that a temporary setback or has Android plateaued in the US?

My Galaxy S3 has just about everything I could want in a phone (for now). I'll be interested to see what Apple does in September and whether it has an impact in Q3 and Q4.

As soon as I pass my class in the fall I am going to buy the Samsung Galaxy Nexus with pre-paid service from T-Mobile on their $30/month plan. Its only 100 minutes but with unlimited text messages and unlimited data I couldn't be happier for that price. Ya the data speeds might be a little slower that I would like if I use too much of my "unlimited" data but I will love not signing a 2 year contract

I might get the next Nexus version that comes out but it depends on when an unlocked version becomes available and for how much.

For me > For some reason 400 bucks for a unlocked phone seemed like like way too much but when google dropped the price to 350 it really make me think about switching over to prepaid telephone service. I can only hope the next Nexus is 350 bucks as well.

Coherent, modern marketing. HTC (as an example) ran a pretty good TV campaign last year, but you could see the limit of their financial reach in that it was strictly targeted. Both Samsung and Apple have the budgets to do not only blanket media buys, but product placement, endorsements, and a host of other marketing/advertising opportunities. It was telling that HTC spent a good portion of that buy not promoting specific products, but simply defining their brand. Their own research probably showed no one knew (or cared) who HTC was, so they needed to create that baseline. That's costly and takes time. It's something neither Samsung nor Apple needs to do.

Samsung also has the advantage of owning a "universal brand." People are familiar with it. They may already own a Samsung refrigerator or TV or other appliance they really like -- seeing that name on a phone at their local wireless store creates an immediate attachment.

Within Android, I'm a bit surprised by Samsung's dominance. I don't expect everyone to share my opinions, but I didn't expect the Galaxy S line's physical home button and hidden two buttons to work for so many people, especially pre-ICS. I don't find their phones nor Touchwiz to be as attractive as a lot of the alternatives, either. What's doing it for them?

At the time the Galaxy S was released it was the most advanced phone on the three non AT&T networks. It had an AMOLED screen that (while not the finest of granularity) was exceptionally good looking thanks to its color range and contrast ratio. In addition their hummingbird processor was much faster than the equivalent broadcom chips of the same period that were in almost every other phone.

Not to mention their phones were thinner and lighter than any others on the market at the time, either.

Within Android, I'm a bit surprised by Samsung's dominance. I don't expect everyone to share my opinions, but I didn't expect the Galaxy S line's physical home button and hidden two buttons to work for so many people, especially pre-ICS. I don't find their phones nor Touchwiz to be as attractive as a lot of the alternatives, either. What's doing it for them?

IMHO, name-brand recognition and marketing. Samsung is second only to Apple with marketing for their phones. I am an HTC fan myself, and find the new 4" Incredible 4G to be a fantastic phone, but I don't recall ever seeing ONE HTC ad outside of a store. In NYC, Samsung's "The next big thing is here" ads are everywhere.

Plus, Samsung is a well respected brand in the electronics field with a rep that these days seems to have surpassed even Sony. Their TV's have bought them street cred and recognition.

I tend to agree. Samsung is a big brand, their phones are at most major carriers and most minor carriers. HTC doesn't have nearly that level of carrier penetration and no one had ever heard of them.

And HTC doesn't usually build as high end of phones, IMO. But they get priced the same (on contract) next to the Samsung phone. The carriers are, in some sense, giving extra subsidy to Samsung phones.

I think things would look very different here if people bought their phones at a different place than they bought their service. Making a phone $100 cheaper would actually matter.

Within Android, I'm a bit surprised by Samsung's dominance. I don't expect everyone to share my opinions, but I didn't expect the Galaxy S line's physical home button and hidden two buttons to work for so many people, especially pre-ICS. I don't find their phones nor Touchwiz to be as attractive as a lot of the alternatives, either. What's doing it for them?

On more than a few occasions in the past I have had people present me a samsung phone and say its pretty much an iphone but on verzion. I have also heard of sales people selling them as that. I suspect the cloning of the iphone helped samsung immensely.

Maybe copying Apple worked? I'm not trying to be trolling but thats my guess. I mean you get apple-like looks with the benefit(?) of running android. You similar packaging similar marketing, all ate cheaper price. . What's not to like?

Yeah, I see what you're saying. Everyone else's posts make sense to me too - I've also seen Galaxy SIII ads in our BART (subway) stations, Samsung is a more widely recognized name than HTC, and subsidized Samsung phones do look like a good deal.

But with the Galaxy S series and Touchwiz, perhaps Samsung was able to use some of Apple's marketing to sell its own products - people associated pictures of iPhones with quality phones, and hey, here's one that appears to do the same. That could be true even if they weren't technically violating patents and trade dress.

Within Android, I'm a bit surprised by Samsung's dominance. I don't expect everyone to share my opinions, but I didn't expect the Galaxy S line's physical home button and hidden two buttons to work for so many people, especially pre-ICS. I don't find their phones nor Touchwiz to be as attractive as a lot of the alternatives, either. What's doing it for them?

Yeah I'm a bit surprised too. Granted as an iPhone user I can't tell the plethora of Android phones apart or remember their crazy names. To me it's just every couple weeks new Android phone X planet IIII. But honestly, hardware wise there isn't a ton to differentiate any smartphone from another so I don't grasp how Samsung can dominate so heavily.

Worldwide, Android is clearly the dominating platform, with a 68 percent total share according to IDC. iOS has 17 percent as previously mentioned"

So which is it? Are you comparing companies or platforms? I see in the first sentence for the US market you only compared companies, and conveniently omitted that "Android" is still well ahead of iOS with over 55% in US. I mean, why not mention that as well, if you're going to mention it in the second sentence?

Within Android, I'm a bit surprised by Samsung's dominance….What's doing it for them?

They have a much stronger worldwide distribution channel than OEMs like HTC or Moto (now GOOG). For example, HTC isn't even competing at all in Brazil, a country with 250 million mobile phone users.

Also keep in mind that the Galaxy S series only represents a small share of Samsung's unit smartphone sales (~15% in a typical quarter, and only ~10% Q2 because of the new launch late quarter). Most of Samsung's smartphone sales are of the free-on-contract or cheap-prepaid variety. That's how you hit the mass market.

In the long run, Samsung will have trouble competing on price with the likes of Huawei and ZTE. The distribution channel advantage will only last so long. If they're not thinking about using their current market dominance to fork (some might say hijack) Android, then they're asleep at the wheel.

Note these charts refer to iOS, but really mean "iPhones only" since they exclude the iPod Touch and iPad. Very misleading indeed.

Clearly the platform is the thing of interest, since the same software largely runs on all 3.

The most interesting one to me however is usage on the platforms. People are still treating Android largely as a feature phone vs iPhone, given that more Android phones are sold, yet iOS still dominates usage statistics.

At the time the Galaxy S was released it was the most advanced phone on the three non AT&T networks.

But the Galaxy S phones are only a sliver of Samsung's total smartphone sales. They get the most attention from us geeks because they're typically the most credible iPhone alternatives, but they're not what the mass market is buying.

Perhaps Samsung's low end smartphones are better than other Android OEMs low end smartphones. I have no idea because I'm not in that market. I suspect few of us on this forum are.

Within Android, I'm a bit surprised by Samsung's dominance. I don't expect everyone to share my opinions, but I didn't expect the Galaxy S line's physical home button and hidden two buttons to work for so many people, especially pre-ICS. I don't find their phones nor Touchwiz to be as attractive as a lot of the alternatives, either. What's doing it for them?

Maybe copying Apple worked? I'm not trying to be trolling but thats my guess. I mean you get apple-like looks with the benefit(?) of running android. You similar packaging similar marketing, all ate cheaper price. . What's not to like?

There is no doubt on my mind that Samsung looked at Apple, saw what worked and copied it. Regardless of that fact it seems to have worked out for them in the end unless they get sued to oblivion by Apple ( which I doubt will happen, they'll get a slap on te wrist and maybe have to change some designs and marketting material).

The Galaxy S3, Galaxy Note, or Galaxy S2 look nothing like any Apple products. Neither does the latest version of TouchWiz. However S-Voice is a blatant rip-off. Samsung probably did just straight up copy the iPhone 3GS with the original Galaxy S and earlier versions of TouchWiz. I'm not convinced that it is worth 2.5 billion dollars that Apple wants. Probably because I don't see how anyone can actually buy something Samsung written all over it and that its made by Apple. Is that Samsung's fault for consumers being ignorant?

Also the HTC One is nice. The One X is a viable contender to the Galaxy S 3 and iPhone 4s. Like others have said HTC just can't compete on the scale of Samsung's mass production and advertisement abilities. Also they need to work on their brand because people know what the EVO line is but they don't know that HTC makes it.

On more than a few occasions in the past I have had people present me a samsung phone and say its pretty much an iphone but on verzion. I have also heard of sales people selling them as that.

And to the majority of uniformed consumers to whom any smartphone is an "iphone", and any portable music player is an "ipod" or any tissue is a "Kleenex" or any photocopy a "Xerox" - this is essentially the truth.

Virtually any smartphone these days is "pretty much an iphone, but...". The majority of people wandering into a cell phone store looking for "an iphone" aren't looking specifically for an iphone, but rather a smartphone - much as anyone asking for a "Kleenex" is unlikely to be holding out for that specific brand of tissue. They don't much care who makes it, they're just after the general functionality.

So I completely understand why people, including sales staff, say, "it's pretty much an iphone, but...", and I don't blame them a bit for it.

And the fact that anyone would hand you a Samsung phone and lead with that statement is pretty solid proof that they know it's not an iphone made by Apple, but that it's functionally (for all intents and purposes) identical.

Within Android, I'm a bit surprised by Samsung's dominance. I don't expect everyone to share my opinions, but I didn't expect the Galaxy S line's physical home button and hidden two buttons to work for so many people, especially pre-ICS. I don't find their phones nor Touchwiz to be as attractive as a lot of the alternatives, either. What's doing it for them?

On more than a few occasions in the past I have had people present me a samsung phone and say its pretty much an iphone but on verzion. I have also heard of sales people selling them as that. I suspect the cloning offer the iphone helped samsung immensely.[/quote]

Possibly. I can't say what made others but samsung but for me, it had nothing to do with Apple. And look at the s3. Over 10 million sold weeks after release and I'd say it doesn't resemble apple. The advertising on that phone is huge what with it sponsoring the Olympics. I'm guessing just about every electronics consumer has heard of it by now and none of the commercials I've seen show off touch wiz much.

My brother in law who is not that tech savvy saw my phone the other day (s3) and told me that he heard it's the best phone on the world. This coming from an apple devote. I'm not saying his fact is right but word is out among casual users that Samsung is top notch.

At the time the Galaxy S was released it was the most advanced phone on the three non AT&T networks.

But the Galaxy S phones are only a sliver of Samsung's total smartphone sales. They get the most attention from us geeks because they're typically the most credible iPhone alternatives, but they're not what the mass market is buying.

Perhaps Samsung's low end smartphones are better than other Android OEMs low end smartphones. I have no idea because I'm not in that market. I suspect few of us on this forum are.

Doesn't matter, it's the flagship that carries the line's perception as well as absorbing technology development costs. Much the way Chevy sold a lot more Cavaliers than Corvettes or Cadillacs the fact that Chevy has the Corvette and Cadillac was important.

Note these charts refer to iOS, but really mean "iPhones only" since they exclude the iPod Touch and iPad. Very misleading indeed.

Fanboy much? The title obviously says smartphone. Now, I don't own the iPod Touch or the iPad, so I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure they aren't smartphones. The rest of your hedging is hilarious also.

edit: and to stymie any further protests over the usage of platform name instead of phone model, "Android" covers both smartphones and tablets--and yet it's only the smartphones they are addressing here.

Within Android, I'm a bit surprised by Samsung's dominance. I don't expect everyone to share my opinions, but I didn't expect the Galaxy S line's physical home button and hidden two buttons to work for so many people, especially pre-ICS. I don't find their phones nor Touchwiz to be as attractive as a lot of the alternatives, either. What's doing it for them?

Yeah I'm a bit surprised too. Granted as an iPhone user I can't tell the plethora of Android phones apart or remember their crazy names. To me it's just every couple weeks new Android phone X planet IIII. But honestly, hardware wise there isn't a ton to differentiate any smartphone from another so I don't grasp how Samsung can dominate so heavily.

The simple fact of the matter is that most people don't give a rats ass about the hardware. They care how it looks, how it feels in their hand, how pocketable it is and if they can get a case that looks blingy enough for them. Only geeks care a whit for what hardware is inside a computer, let alone a phone.

The first thing you have to understand is that there are 2 very different markets in the smartphone industry: the low-end and the high-end. Phones, unlike say tablets, are considered a necessity all over the globe. People would stop paying rent first, before they stop paying phone bills. And in the case of less developed countries, people will buy pre-paid cards even if they don't have enough money for bread. I've been to the Philippines and people who work for a few cents per hour have smartphones. In fact, in many countries, if you have an iPhone, people will assume you're rich.

Low-end phones are phones that are necessity phones. You consider a phone a necessity, but you can't afford to shell out. This market is cuthroat and has razor-thin margins. In the low-end market, the old "feature" phones are very rapidly being replaced by Android phones you've never even heard about. This is the primary engine of Android growth. I can assume with a certain degree of certainty that out of the 104 million Android phones shipped in the 2nd quarter, more than 80 million are cheap phones, sporting Gingerbreads, spread out in hundreds of different models. If it's sporting Gingerbread, it's a cheap phone even if it has 4g LTE. I'm not saying these are bad phones but basically the only reason you would buy it is because you want a cheap phone. The world still has 50% "dumb" phones left so Android growth will continue. Apple's presence here is basically just the 3GS. And in many countries, the 3GS is still considered a luxury phone.

High-end phones are phones that you actually want to buy. In other words, its a luxury much like tablets. Either you have the money for it or you save up for it. And in this market Apple actually dominates. That's why they have 70% of all smartphone profits. Not because they're overpriced (that's just a perception, all high end phones are priced similarly) but because this is the only market that they target. They have that much profit because that's how much they dominate the high end market. Just look at the SG3: 10 million units shipped in 2 months. The iPhone 4S sold that many in 2 weeks. Analysts are predicting the iPhone 5 will sell that many in a week.

What I'm saying is I don't see the point of all this market share statistics when the complexity is not comparable to say the iPod or iPad market. Tablets will never be a necessity no matter how cheap they are. Even the Kindle Fire, Nook and Nexus 7 are items that you have to want to consider buying it. That "want" factor is important. It means that you have a much higher chance to be willing to spend more on other stuff like accessories, apps and other content. That's why the 6 million Kindle Fire sold was a much bigger motivator to developers than the 104 million Android sold. The only one making money out of all that Androids is Google. That's 104 million phones they can put their ads in.

Doesn't matter, it's the flagship that carries the line's perception as well as absorbing technology development costs. Much the way Chevy sold a lot more Cavaliers than Corvettes or Cadillacs the fact that Chevy has the Corvette and Cadillac was important.

Do you have any data for that? I'm guessing the majority of consumers, either in the US or any other country, don't even know what a "Galaxy S3" is, let alone who makes it.

31% is not owning the market... And if you look at platform iOS is way behind Android, according to that NPD link.

Yeah, I'm gonna call click-bait on that headline. "Apple LEADS US smartphone..." would be more appropriate, so long as the rest of the article didn't jump back and forth, confusing manufacturers with OSs repeatedly.

Doesn't help that while the headline is manufacturer-specific, the graphic is OS-specific.

Doesn't matter, it's the flagship that carries the line's perception as well as absorbing technology development costs. Much the way Chevy sold a lot more Cavaliers than Corvettes or Cadillacs the fact that Chevy has the Corvette and Cadillac was important.

Do you have any data for that? I'm guessing the majority of consumers, either in the US or any other country, don't even know what a "Galaxy S3" is, let alone who makes it.

It's basic branding and marketing. Companies don't market their low end parts, they market their high end parts and how every expert loves it and how great their high end parts are so that people's perception of the brand will be positive. Then when those people head to the car lot/store/whatever their perception of the low-end Froyo loaded samsung phone that is free with 2year contract is higher than their perception of some pantech/huawei/whatever bargain segment manufacturer's phone even if objectively they might be identical or almost identical.